Nebraska abolishes the death penalty

[autigeremt 6,641]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

:blink:/> Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

[AUDub 11,153]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

[TitanTiger 20,495]

Studies seem to indicate hat the death penalty does not result in lower murder rates. People simply aren't thinking about capital punishment in the heat of the moment. And serial killers don't care.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

:blink:/> Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

I understand what you are saying but crimes of passion aren't even death penalty qualified. That's only voluntary manslaughter and with a good lawyer, defendant could be out in 10 years.

[AUDub 11,153]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

I understand what you are saying but crimes of passion aren't even death penalty qualified. That's only voluntary manslaughter and with a good lawyer, defendant could be out in 10 years.

And yet, many murderers sitting on death row are there for murders committed in the heat of the passion.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

:blink:/> Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

I understand what you are saying but crimes of passion aren't even death penalty qualified. That's only voluntary manslaughter and with a good lawyer, defendant could be out in 10 years.

And yet, many murderers sitting on death row are there for murders committed in the heat of the passion.

usually first or second degree murder is the required threshold. Never in my life have I heard of the death penalty for crimes of passion.

[AUDub 11,153]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

I understand what you are saying but crimes of passion aren't even death penalty qualified. That's only voluntary manslaughter and with a good lawyer, defendant could be out in 10 years.

And yet, many murderers sitting on death row are there for murders committed in the heat of the passion.

usually first or second degree murder is the required threshold. Never in my life have I heard of the death penalty for crimes of passion.

Yet it does happen.

Generally 1st degree is the threshold. Murder 2 is usually 15-25 to life.

Not my point anyway. My point was to disabuse EMT of the notion of the deterrent effect in the vast majority of murders, which are generally the result of passion or compulsion. Rarely is anyone commiting a murder in the heat of passion thinking about the consequences of getting caught.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm not really concerned about who did what, or what persons/party are primarily responsible, I'm just glad it happened and dream of the day when nowhere in the United States is such barbarism allowed. But I am grateful to everyone responsible for this progress.

I think it should always be there to deter. However the burden of proof has to be great.

The deterrent effect is a myth.

My take....myth or not. But I will say this....if someone raped and killed one of my girls or my wife and I knew who it was, the deterrent is no longer in the hands of the state.

:blink:/> Sounds to me like you are confusing deterrence, which is supposed to prevent such acts and must occur before the crime, with vengeance, which occurs after the fact.

While I understand that many believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent, there is no actual evidence that it does.

Having the possibility of death on the table might just serve as a deterrence for some....before the fact. Of course, at the rate morality is going, people who commit these crimes may no longer care.

You can't deter crimes of passion and compulsion practically by definition.

I understand what you are saying but crimes of passion aren't even death penalty qualified. That's only voluntary manslaughter and with a good lawyer, defendant could be out in 10 years.

And yet, many murderers sitting on death row are there for murders committed in the heat of the passion.

usually first or second degree murder is the required threshold. Never in my life have I heard of the death penalty for crimes of passion.

Yet it does happen.

Generally 1st degree is the threshold. Murder 2 is usually 15-25 to life.

Not my point anyway. My point was to disabuse EMT of the notion of the deterrent effect in the vast majority of murders, which are generally the result of passion or compulsion. Rarely is anyone commiting a murder in the heat of passion thinking about the consequences of getting caught.

I agree with that point to EMT, too..

From the Texas Execution information :

"Only one category of crime is punishable by death in the United States -- capital murder. Each state defines which murders are classified as capital murders and are, therefore, eligible for the death penalty. In general, the states do not classify "crimes of passion" to be capital murder. That is, if two people get into an argument, and one ends up killing the other, that usually is not capital murder. The rationale is that this kind of murder occurs in the heat of the moment, when the subjects are irrational and unlikely to consider the penalties of their actions. Furthermore, in "acquaintance murders", it is assumed that there is some history between the murderer and the victim, and that the victim may have initiated or aggravated the situation that resulted in his or her death. This is not to say that the murder can be excused, but rather that the murderer might have felt provoked or justified and was not acting from the simple cold-bloodedness that characterizes a capital murder. Capital murder is usually defined so as to include murders that are premeditated, or murders where the victim was completely blameless and was killed mainly because he or she got in the way of planned criminal activity, or was a witness to a crime."

[quietfan 233]

Honestly, I don't see how the death penalty would be very much stronger as a deterrent as the threat of life in prison. In fact, speaking for myself, I think I would prefer they go ahead and execute me rather than leave me to a lifetime of the misery that is prison. I sincerely doubt that anyone thinks "Well, I'll go ahead and commit this murder because the worst that can happen to me is just life in prison."

But the bottom line is, there is no proven deterrent effect from either. And most criminals either: 1) assume they want get caught and so aren't worried about the consequences, 2) don't think about the consequences/penalties at all, or 3) consider the potential gains from their actions well worth the risk.

For myself, I still don't think I have the authority, knowledge, or wisdom to decide who should live and who should die. I certainly do not think a possible (though unproven) deterrent effect improves my ability to make such decisions. And I resent the State making that decision in my name (since I am technically one of "The People [of Alabama in my case]" listed in most criminal indictments).

[cooltigger21 0]

Well Nebraska followed the system they have in place for this. I personally like the death penalty but if they decide they want to get rid of it well that's their decision to make.